In a landmark decision for the European gaming sector, Malta’s First Hall of the Civil Court has ruled against the enforcement of Austrian court judgements that had ordered Malta-licensed gaming operators to refund player losses.
On 27 February 2025, Honourable Justice Francesco Depasquale handed down a ruling that sets a powerful precedent in the ongoing legal fight over cross-border gambling laws within the European Union.
The cases, namely, TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Limited vs Gerhard Posch et al. and European Lotto and Betting Limited vs Philip Wahl et al. are the first to be decided in a series of similar legal challenges currently being heard in Maltese courts. These cases involve Austrian players trying to enforce Austrian judgements in Malta, demanding refunds for gambling losses incurred on platforms operated by Malta Gaming Authority (MGA)-licensed companies.
The Maltese court threw out the enforcement of these Austrian rulings, arguing they went directly against Malta’s public policy.
In the cases in question, upon being notified that the players were seeking to enforce such Austrian judgments in Malta, the applicant companies filed applications before the First Hall of the Civil Court. They requested that the court refuse the recognition and enforcement of the relative judgments based on Article 45(1)(a) of EU Regulation 1215/2012. This article provides that the courts of a Member State shall refuse the recognition and enforcement of a judgment delivered in another Member State if such recognition and enforcement would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of that Member State.
The parties arguing in favour of such refusal of recognition and enforcement contended that Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, being one of the four fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Treaty, is a fundamental rule of European Union law and, by extension, a fundamental rule of Maltese law as a Member State of the European Union. As such, it was argued that the recognition and enforcement in Malta of such judgements delivered in Austria would undermine Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as a fundamental rule of the Maltese legal order.
In their final submissions, these parties also referred to Article 56A of the Gaming Act (Chapter 583 of the laws of Malta), recently promulgated to codify this position. This article confirms that any decision that “(i) conflicts with or undermines the legality of the provision of gaming services in or from Malta by virtue of a licence issued by the Authority, or the legality of any legal or natural obligation resulting from the provision of such gaming services; and (ii) relates to an authorised activity which is lawful in terms of the Act and other applicable regulatory instruments” indeed contravenes Maltese public policy.
This ruling follows Article 45(1)(a) of EU Regulation 1215/2012, which lets Member States reject foreign judgments that go against their core legal principles.
The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) intervened in both proceedings, supporting the operators’ stance. The authority contended that the Austrian judgments undermined Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)—which guarantees the freedom to provide services within the EU. Malta’s legal team strengthened its case by pointing to Article 56A of the Gaming Act (Chapter 583). This law explicitly protects MGA-licensed operators, blocking foreign rulings that attempt to dispute the legitimacy of their services.
Austria enforces a restrictive gambling monopoly, where casino and lottery operations are tightly controlled under federal regulation, while sports betting is governed by more flexible provincial laws.
This legal structure has long been debated for its compatibility with EU free-market principles, with some local Austrian courts ruling that the monopoly violates EU law. However, Austria’s Supreme Court upheld the system’s legitimacy, leading to a wave of lawsuits by Austrian players demanding refunds from foreign operators.
Austrian lower courts have since relied on this higher court ruling to justify ordering refunds, with little or no dynamic reassessment—a requirement under EU law to continuously evaluate the legitimacy of service restrictions.
This has prompted legal battles, with MGA-licensed operators claiming that Austrian courts ignore key EU legal principles, especially the right to provide services across borders.
Legal experts see this ruling as a major boost for MGA-licensed operators, strengthening Malta’s reputation as a top destination for iGaming businesses. The decision provides immediate legal protection for Malta-based operators facing similar claims, preventing Austrian players from successfully enforcing refund judgments in Maltese courts.
While the ruling is a win for MGA-licensed operators, some industry insiders caution that it may only be a temporary victory. If Austria takes this fight to the next level or EU regulators tighten the reins on cross-border gambling, Malta’s legal position could come under renewed pressure.
Gaming law specialists suggest this ruling could deter further legal actions from Austrian players, though it may not be the final chapter in the dispute. Austria could attempt to escalate the issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), challenging Malta’s refusal to enforce these judgments.
This ruling reinforces the authority of MGA licences under EU law for gaming companies licensed in Malta, allowing them to continue operating within the single market—provided they follow all regulatory guidelines. It also acts as a legal safeguard, blocking refund claims from stricter gambling jurisdictions like Austria.
Even so, industry experts warn that uncertainty is far from over. Other EU nations with tight gambling restrictions may take a similar standpoint, triggering new legal challenges. Operators must stay sharp, keep a close eye on legal shifts, and strengthen their defences against cross-border enforcement crackdowns.
The dispute between Malta and Austria lays bare the continued tension between national gambling laws and the EU’s push for an open market. This ruling shields MGA-licensed operators, but the bigger battle over cross-border gaming laws is still raging. The industry is bracing for what comes next, with potential legal fights ahead at the EU level.
One thing is certain—Malta’s courts won’t allow MGA-licensed operators to hand back a cent to Austrian players.
Welcome to Gambling Consulting Authority (GCA) - Your Strategic Partner in Gambling Industry Advancement
